I'm gonna say it: I don't even care about HL3 anymore. It's been too long, and there have been too many other games that have been rockstar good but haven't taken a decade to develop. The Last of Us, for example.

At this point people should realize that Valve is just not interested in Half-Life, or dare I say it, game development in general. Which is fine.

Vrock wrote:I'm gonna say it: I don't even care about HL3 anymore. It's been too long, and there have been too many other games that have been rockstar good but haven't taken a decade to develop. The Last of Us, for example.

At this point people should realize that Valve is just not interested in Half-Life, or dare I say it, game development in general. Which is fine.

L4D2, DOTA2, and TF2 development...they've got stuff, but it is clear that their attitude has shifted to multiplayer games and Steam. I also have a feeling that Ep 3 probably got out of hand, which would make a full-on Half-Life 3 more likely to finish the story, and that has considerations to make as well.

My guess is that they will eventually roll out a new Source engine, and when they do, HL3 will accompany it.

/speculation

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP"

Vrock wrote:I'm gonna say it: I don't even care about HL3 anymore. It's been too long, and there have been too many other games that have been rockstar good but haven't taken a decade to develop. The Last of Us, for example.

At this point people should realize that Valve is just not interested in Half-Life, or dare I say it, game development in general. Which is fine.

L4D2, DOTA2, and TF2 development...they've got stuff, but it is clear that their attitude has shifted to multiplayer games and Steam. I also have a feeling that Ep 3 probably got out of hand, which would make a full-on Half-Life 3 more likely to finish the story, and that has considerations to make as well.

My guess is that they will eventually roll out a new Source engine, and when they do, HL3 will accompany it.

/speculation

L4D and DOTA were bought from other people I thought. And wasn't team fortress, too, originally back in the HL days? They don't seem to do much original stuff in-house.

Scrotos wrote:L4D and DOTA were bought from other people I thought. And wasn't team fortress, too, originally back in the HL days? They don't seem to do much original stuff in-house.

Left 4 Dead was developed by Turtle Rock Studios, starting sometime in 2005. In 2008 Valve acquired Turtle Rock, but the game was mostly done by that point.

The DOTA story is a bit more complicated. Too my knowledge the Defense of the Ancients map created for Warcraft 3 was made by a guy who went by Eul. Steve "Guinsoo" Feak made the map DotA: Allstars which was an evolution of the DotA, eventually Guinsoo handed development of DotA: Allstars over to IceFrog who is the current maintainer. Feak now works at Riot Games, the League of Legends people. IceFrog works at Valve and is the lead designer behind Dota 2. So... give credit to whoever you want on that one, there was also a Starcraft map that inspired it all I think.

Team Fortress started life as a Quake mod, moved to the HL1 engine. The two lead developers, Robin Walker and John Cook, were eventually employed by Valve. A much more polished version of TF came out called Team Fortress Classic. Then it took forever for TF2 to be released and was a rather different game really.

Same basic story with Counter-Strike as well, started life as a mod, developers hired by Valve.

Valve has been doing this since their start. The HL1 expansions were developed by Gearbox for instance. The lead designers behind Portal were students at Digipen who had a project named Narbacular Drop, which featured the portal gameplay element, that was seen by Robin Walker (remember him?) who got them in front of Gabe and next thing you know the whole team works for Valve. Portal then arrives a couple of years later.

Vrock wrote:I'm gonna say it: I don't even care about HL3 anymore. It's been too long, and there have been too many other games that have been rockstar good but haven't taken a decade to develop. The Last of Us, for example.

At this point people should realize that Valve is just not interested in Half-Life, or dare I say it, game development in general. Which is fine.

L4D2, DOTA2, and TF2 development...they've got stuff, but it is clear that their attitude has shifted to multiplayer games and Steam. I also have a feeling that Ep 3 probably got out of hand, which would make a full-on Half-Life 3 more likely to finish the story, and that has considerations to make as well.

My guess is that they will eventually roll out a new Source engine, and when they do, HL3 will accompany it.

/speculation

L4D and DOTA were bought from other people I thought. And wasn't team fortress, too, originally back in the HL days? They don't seem to do much original stuff in-house.

L4D2 and DOTA2. I know less about DOTA, but L4D2 was much more polished than the original L4D. Instead of feeling like a mod, it felt like it was built from the ground up, and as a result the final product was greatly improved. I think the same goes for DOTA.

And as for Team Fortress, it's the same story of building a new game from the ground up, and I think the result is a more successful game. I also said "TF2 development," by which I meant that TF2 is in perpetual development mode at this point. It's kind of become a workshop for Valve to test ideas and maintain a solid player base, and it generates income at the same time.

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP"

superjawes wrote:L4D2 and DOTA2. I know less about DOTA, but L4D2 was much more polished than the original L4D. Instead of feeling like a mod, it felt like it was built from the ground up, and as a result the final product was greatly improved. I think the same goes for DOTA.

And as for Team Fortress, it's the same story of building a new game from the ground up, and I think the result is a more successful game. I also said "TF2 development," by which I meant that TF2 is in perpetual development mode at this point. It's kind of become a workshop for Valve to test ideas and maintain a solid player base, and it generates income at the same time.

Yeah, read slowriot's post, he's got it all. You're honestly just reaching. The fact remains that Valve's original IP, that they developed themselves, consists of HL and I think Ricochet, a HL1 mod. Maybe something else? But HL is the only original IP that they did not buy or acquire that had any commercial success.

I'm not hating on Valve for what they've published nor do I hate the company or Steam in general. I'm just sayin', they haven't produced anything original in forever. As long as they get other good ideas, polish them, and publish them, I don't care if they follow the same model as Activision or EA.

L4D2 had more crap in it. I like the feel of L4D1 more with the inventory management and feel though I do like L4D2's campaigns and events and even the new specials. But the feel? Somehow it just loses me.

Just because you spend lots of time on something before you release it doesn't mean it's new or original. You might not be an old gamer or maybe you just don't remember that TF2 became a joke like Duke Nukem Forever. Hey, don't take my word for it, look at item 7 here: http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... rentPage=2

As Wikipedia notes, this classic vaporware has become a fixture on the vaporware dishonor roll.

Again, not saying it sucks or that Valve sucks or whatever, but using TF2 as an example of being in continual development as a good thing is a minority opinion for both gamers and the gaming media. It was an industry JOKE while it was being continually developed. It's got success now and that's fantastic. Doesn't mean it was Valve's original IP.

Maybe you will just flat out disagree with me, but I will consider a sequel in a series completely new as long as enough of the core mechanics are different. L4D2 and TF2 are very different from their predecessors. Yes, they are existing IP, and they did not originally belong to Valve, but that does not mean they are unoriginal. With significant rework (which both had), the experience is significantly different.

And I wasn't talking about TF2's long development time...I was referring to the continuing updates coming to the released game. In this case, TF2 is not only an improvement over its predecessor, but the release version of TF2 is vastly different from its current one, with the itroduction of new game modes, weapons, cosmetic features, events, etc.

Again, you and I might disagree on whether or not that is "original," but even then, I wasn't trying to make points about original IP. My objection was to the claim that Valve isn't interested in game development. To which I respond:

Well... in my opinion Team Fortress 2 is a "Valve developed game." It diverges so significantly from the original Team Fortress that it's really only related in name and that Robin Walker and John Cook work at Valve now (and have during the entire TF2 development cycle). Also, I think superjawes meant that even now the game is in continual development. It has evolved significantly since release, spearheading Valve's F2P model, and Steam components like Steamworks. It gets constant new content updates, something I think it's community clearly loves given how popular it has stayed.

Portal.... Narbacular Drop had the portals gameplay mechanic but the story didn't happen until the team came to Valve. The story in Portal is my favorite part. Portal 2 is then an entirely in-house game.

L4D... rather clearly a Turtle Rock developed game. L4D2 though certainly had a lot of talent who were not part of the original team who worked on it.

Dota 2... well... its a MOBA. If it wasn't Dota: Allstars then it's all a derivative of the previous ones before it. I give Valve credit for hiring IceFrog and giving him the lead designer role.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I like Valve's approach. All of these games would not have been as good as they are without those independent developers getting opportunities at Valve and Valve having the willingness and resources to put into those potential games. All game development teams must acquire new talent with fresh ideas. Valve has done it in a more public manner, attracting high profile mod developers, etc.

superjawes wrote:Since the release of The Orange Box in 2007, Valve has released six games, one a year, and they continue to develop content for existing games.

Ok, but how many games has Microsoft Studios, EA, or Activision released in that timeframe? Because in that context, that's all Valve is--a publishing house.

To kind of go back to the original topic, that's probably why HL2:EP3 and HL3 are unlikely to happen any year soon. Valve needs to get another company to make it, then buy the company, then spend some time polishing it, then finally release it. It'll most likely be great, but original IP just ain't their strength.

And I'd argue that the gameplay mechanics of L4D2 are pretty much the same as the first. 4 people, primary and secondary weapons, instant temporary health boost, slow full health boost, horde of opponents, some special opponents. I am not disappointed by more of the same. I like more of the same if the same is good fun and high quality. L4D2 was fun and high quality but it sure as 'ell wasn't all new or "original" as a sequel. I'd give you TF2 versus TF/TFC, sure, because it was like a DECADE between those releases, but not the zombie game. Very very similar.

slowriot wrote:Maybe I'm crazy, but I like Valve's approach. All of these games would not have been as good as they are without those independent developers getting opportunities at Valve and Valve having the willingness and resources to put into those potential games. All game development teams must acquire new talent with fresh ideas. Valve has done it in a more public manner, attracting high profile mod developers, etc.

Yeah, but look at some of the older dev studios like Blizzard North/South and Ion Storm. They brought together teams to make games, they didn't buy existing studios for their IP and just integrate that. I'm talking Spector's people, stuff like Deus Ex and Anachronox. I know they did some Thief stuff but Spector got as much as the defunct Looking Glass people as he could. Diablo, made by Blizzard North. Warcraft/Starcraft, Blizzard South.

I guess for me the distinction is between buying ideas or buying talent. Valve does both, sure, but I have more respect for those that buy talent and come up with something on their own.

Scrotos wrote:Yeah, but look at some of the older dev studios like Blizzard North/South and Ion Storm. They brought together teams to make games, they didn't buy existing studios for their IP and just integrate that. I'm talking Spector's people, stuff like Deus Ex and Anachronox. I know they did some Thief stuff but Spector got as much as the defunct Looking Glass people as he could. Diablo, made by Blizzard North. Warcraft/Starcraft, Blizzard South.

I guess for me the distinction is between buying ideas or buying talent. Valve does both, sure, but I have more respect for those that buy talent and come up with something on their own.

Eh... I don't think there's much of a tangible distinction there. If you're hiring the talent you're going to get their brilliant ideas too. There are certainly tons of people who worked on Diablo 1, 2 and 3 who had worked on prior RPGs who brought in ideas they had before joining Blizzard into the game. Same thing goes for the Ion Storm people. Similarly, many of those people have gone on to work at different places or start their own studios.

I think it was a Rock Paper Shotgun where a producer for WildStar mentioned that a significant portion of the team they have worked on World of Warcraft. Upwards of 40% I think (may recall it wrong). Now, is WildStar now not an original idea? Clearly a lot of the ideas the developers have were in their heads before they worked for Carbine. How does that work?

It just seems like a silly distinction to me. There's so much cross pollination in the gaming industry anyway that trying to determine who was the "originator" of an idea is impossible. Team Fortress 2 has as much in common with Team Fortress as Call of Duty does. So why wouldn't Valve get complete credit for that game being in house when the only connection remaining was the name and some common developers?

It's a bit like saying Irrational Games doesn't get credit for the BioShock series because it was clearly inspired by System Shock and former System Shock developers work at Irrational.

superjawes wrote:Apples to oranges much? EA and Activision are publishers, not development studios (which Valve is). Both own development studios. Miscosoft Studios contains 23 game development studios.

Guess that is why Valve is focusing more on releasing trading cards and achivments into steam then making actual games then, because they are so much clearly a developer...

Scrotos wrote:I guess for me the distinction is between buying ideas or buying talent. Valve does both, sure, but I have more respect for those that buy talent and come up with something on their own.

Eh... I don't think there's much of a tangible distinction there. If you're hiring the talent you're going to get their brilliant ideas too. There are certainly tons of people who worked on Diablo 1, 2 and 3 who had worked on prior RPGs who brought in ideas they had before joining Blizzard into the game. Same thing goes for the Ion Storm people. Similarly, many of those people have gone on to work at different places or start their own studios.

I think it was a Rock Paper Shotgun where a producer for WildStar mentioned that a significant portion of the team they have worked on World of Warcraft. Upwards of 40% I think (may recall it wrong). Now, is WildStar now not an original idea? Clearly a lot of the ideas the developers have were in their heads before they worked for Carbine. How does that work?

It just seems like a silly distinction to me. There's so much cross pollination in the gaming industry anyway that trying to determine who was the "originator" of an idea is impossible. Team Fortress 2 has as much in common with Team Fortress as Call of Duty does. So why wouldn't Valve get complete credit for that game being in house when the only connection remaining was the name and some common developers?

It's a bit like saying Irrational Games doesn't get credit for the BioShock series because it was clearly inspired by System Shock and former System Shock developers work at Irrational.

Cross pollination is different than buying an existing IP. Lotta the WoW people had experience working on EverQuest and some of the same people were involved with D&D. That doesn't mean Blizzard bought D&D, spent a few months cleaning up the code and assets, and releasing it.

I already gave some credit for TF2 since it took a decade to get released. But you're telling me that DOTA, L4D, and the rest were thought up at Valve originally and not bought properties? I'd even be willing to go for the Portal bit though while the story was made at Valve, the core, pretty unique at the time gameplay was not. They coulda ripped it off but kudos to them, they wanted to get the core team involved in creating something fun.

However, in my mind Valve still acts more like a publisher, taking other ideas, repackaging them, and selling them. Again, they are quality products, but going back to the whole HL3 thing, they really don't have a good track record for in-house developed stuff. As in, finishing and releasing.

I think this "argument" (and I don't want to use that word as it's too strong...discussion perhaps?) seems a bit "silly" (again, no the right word I'm looking for) as acquiring developers/companies to grow your business/portfolio is done by IBM 130 times since 1999.

I can agree that Valve doesn't have much "Internal IP" (and I'm defining internal IP, for argument sake, as already existing Valve employees, on the Valve payroll creating a completely internal new game free from third party influence). But does it really matter?

If an independent studio/developer creates their own game, there is a high probability that although the game is great (for argument's sake, the game is great), it will fail to achieve mass market. Sure, it will sell a few thousand or more. Let's look at Counter Strike. At it's start (pre-Valve), it was becoming popular and *might* have reached the levels it did without Valve. But when Valve bought the IP, they were able to throw their developer support, knowledge, marketing and more importantly, $$ to make it a success.

I think we can probably all agree that all of Valve's games would have been successful on their own, but after acquiring these IP's, have made them hugely successful.

We can be thankful that when an IP gets bought by Valve, we can expect something really good to come out of it. When something gets bought by IBM...It goes there to die a long, slow and painful death.